Markus Laire [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/27/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since the CC licenses don't require distribution of the preferred
form for making modification aka. source code, it is essential that
downstream recipient can extract works for modification and
Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=390664
(please read it first)
Oh crap, it's a maintainer who thinks calling other people Nazis is
a good idea in debian/changelog. Defamation or what?
There's also some documentation-in-the-source-is-not-source
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 11:58:51AM +0300, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
[Restricting to -legal, feel free to widen the audience if neccessary]
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, the RMs are making claims that those sourceless GPLed drivers don't
cause
any kind of distribution problem,
Hi debian-legal, ...
It seems the firmware kernel issue has reached a deadpoint, as there is some
widely different interpretation of the meaning of the GPL over sourceless
code.
For some background, the kernel/firmware wiki page includes both a proposed
GR, the draft position statement by the
[Restricting to -legal, feel free to widen the audience if neccessary]
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, the RMs are making claims that those sourceless GPLed drivers don't cause
any kind of distribution problem, while i strongly believe that the GPL clause
saying that all the
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The main point is that the actual reason for this mess is that those vendors
provided these firmware blobs without thinking of the implication, and the
upstream kernel folk took them in because it was more convenient to consider
them as data (to the
Am 2006-09-29 11:47:36, schrieb Henri Sivonen:
If you get the source of e.g. Firefox or Gimp and modify the source
and recompile for Windows, Windows will still run your own versions
without you having to ask Microsoft to sign your binaries.
Which M$ can change at any time! (The code is
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 10:28:20 +0200 Sven Luther wrote:
So, the RMs are making claims that those sourceless GPLed drivers
don't cause any kind of distribution problem, while i strongly believe
that the GPL clause saying that all the distribution rights under the
GPL are lost if you cannot abide
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, the RMs are making claims that those sourceless GPLed drivers
don't cause any kind of distribution problem, while i strongly
believe that the GPL clause saying that all the distribution rights
under the GPL are lost if you cannot abide by all points,
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Time to see what we would need to change to make it DFSG-free.
On a quick readthrough of the SFDL, it looks like this to me:
* Unlike the GFDL, no Invariant Sections or Cover Texts.
And they can't be added, so it
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 09:31:27PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, the RMs are making claims that those sourceless GPLed drivers
don't cause any kind of distribution problem, while i strongly
believe that the GPL
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 09:31:27PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
So the real question is whether we want to do that, whether in the
particular cases there's in fact any doubt, etc.
A quick survey based on the size of the firmware blobs suggests 1/3 of them
may be register dumps, while 2/3 are most
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, the RMs are making claims that those sourceless GPLed drivers
don't cause any kind of distribution problem, while i strongly
believe that the GPL clause saying that all the distribution rights
under the GPL are
13 matches
Mail list logo
